Conversion Therapy and a Survey of 25,896 LGBTQ youth

I stand by 'faulty' in that the mismatch in sexed body and gender identity would seem to be a pretty big problem given that the solution is major hormone treatment and surgery? If it wasn't an issue that needed fixing, there would be no need for massive corrective procedures?

Indeed. I can accept that there is a biological basis to transgenderism, like many psychological conditions. I don't accept that true gender dysphoria (and I think most people claiming to have it are undiagnosed, and probably don't actually have it) is unremarkable and exactly the same as people not having distressing psychological feelings that their body is wrong.

you accept that gender identity exists.

Well. Most people posting here have agreed that some people feel that they have a gender identity. Most of us do not have a gender identity and some people believe that they do not exist.

a female gender identity is perfectly normal and natural thing, and only becomes a problem if it develops in a body that has mostly typically male sex characteristics.

What is a female gender identity, and how is it different from a male gender identity?

I told you - it's a person's own innate sense of what sex they are and scientists believe it is biological in nature.

Are you a saying that people are ‘feeling’ their sex? That biology has nothing to do with determining if you are female?

Are you sure?

Because we keep being told that no one is denying sex is real anymore?

And are you saying that many transpeople who acknowledge their sex is what they were observed as at birth but their gender is different are delusional? Because they state that sex is separated by body type around the capacity to produce large or small gametes. And gender is different and can change.

@Shizuku
One thing I don't understand when people insist that there is such a thing as a 'gender identity' which is unrelated both to someone's sex and to stereotypes, is why it is called a 'gender identity' and not just an 'identity' or 'personality'?

The word 'gender' (when applied to people, rather than as a linguistic term) is commonly used in two ways: either as a euphemistic synonym for 'sex' or to describe the stereotypes which are applied to people because of their sex. So it is always about sex and it is sometimes about stereotypes.

So surely something which is called a 'gender identity' is also about sex (and possibly about stereotypes). If gender is being used in the first way, to mean 'sex', then surely someone who believes they are the opposite sex (despite the evidence of their own body) is suffering from a mental health condition, because such a belief (that someone is something they are not) is a delusionary belief, and indicates mental ill health.

If gender is being used in the second way, to mean the stereotypes associated with the sexes, then a 'gender identity' cannot be separated from the stereotypes applying to each sex. This would explain why the examples of conversion therapy for trans people which you posted last night were all about male people being persuaded not to wear 'women's' clothes.

There is a third possibility, that a gender identity (which is neither to do with the sexed body nor stereotypes) is a sort of quasi religious belief, similar to a belief in a soul which is separate from the body. In this case it would not have to be related to the body, nor to stereotypes, but it would just be a belief in an internal essence of womanhood or manhood. Is this what you believe it is?

It's person's own innate sense of what sex they are.

Innate means born with it. No baby is born with an innate sense of who they are. In actual fact, in as much as babies know anything, for most of the first year of their lives they know that they are a part of their primary carer, usually their mother. They do not even understand themselves as an independent organism that exists separately from its mother organism, so the idea that a baby would be born with an innate sense of their own sex is farcical. (This is part of the psychological background to separation anxiety typical around the one year mark.)

Between two and three years old, children develop an understanding of themselves as being of one type of person or another based on their sharpening pattern recognition skills. In other words, they start to understand that they belong in the same group as men and boys or women and girls, but whatever sex they are, they tend to want to emulate their main carer at this stage (typically the mother) and show an interest in what she does and seek to do what she does, or wear her shoes, or use her lipstick. Not because they want to be female, but because they want to be mum. They do not know at this point what it means to be male or female.

Between the ages of three and four however, they develop a much clearer understanding of sex and of what male and female people are expected to do, how to behave and what to wear. Who has the babies, who grows a beard, who is stronger and so on. If they sought to emulate mum (or their primary carer) before, now they may take a much stronger interest in dad (or their secondary carer).

At the end of this process, at around four years old they typically start to show a strong preference for the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with their own sex. That's such a strong trait in children of this age that this is frequently the moment when children who prefer the stereotypes associated with the opposite sex are noted for this atypical preference. And when many parents seek to correct their child's behaviour to ensure compliance with the correct stereotypes for their sex.

And the point when children start to be referred for their gender-non-conforming behaviour.

So if gender identity exists at all, it is not innate but learned.

(I don't know if this needs saying, but the ages I've given are averages. Some children develop faster and others slower than this.)

Scientists believe it is biological in origin.

And you quote from and link to a political statement to support your point? Why?

I accept entirely that some people have a gender identity (and invariably that their gender identity differs from their sex - as no one else seems to claim to have one).

In the same way I know that an anorexic isn't lying when they think they are too fat and someone with body dysmorphia isn't lying when they say they are ugly. It is their perceived truth.

Does that mean I entirely accept that it's not faulty wiring or a mental health issue? No. No it doesn't, I'm afraid.

Yes, this.

I told you - it's a person's own innate sense of what sex they are and scientists believe it is biological in nature.

Which scientists? What is the innate sense of which of the two sexes you are? And where does this leave "non binary" people?

No one thinks that someone with a gender identity is lying about it. No one.

I accept entirely that some people have a gender identity (and invariably that their gender identity differs from their sex - as no one else seems to claim to have one).

In the same way I know that an anorexic isn't lying when they think they are too fat and someone with body dysmorphia isn't lying when they say they are ugly. It is their perceived truth.

Does that mean I entirely accept that it's not faulty wiring or a mental health issue? No. No it doesn't, I'm afraid.

So when people talk about their gender identity, what is it that you think they are referring to?

I don't know. I'm not sure it even exists. You're the one insisting that it's 'real'. What do you think they're referring to?

it's not sex stereotypes or how masculine or feminine their personality is - some trans women are butch, some trans girls are tomboys. And it's not their sexual orientation - some trans men are gay, some are straight, some are ace, some are pan etc etc.

So what is it? You keep telling us what it's not, but never what it is.

Shizuku:
[re gender identity] It's person's own innate sense of what sex they are

So, as we thought, there is no scientific (experimentally falsifiable) set of criteria for its presence or absence. That is, to spell it out, there is no scientific evidence for there being any such thing as gender identity.

Believe in it or not. Believe in guardian angels or not. But please, do not think your belief has any scientific basis, in either case.

Have you considered not treating autistic people as idiots who don't know who they are?

Can you stop with the hostile posting if you want a serious discussion.

Or, is that the purpose of this thread to show readers what’s what. Because I doubt it is going the way you think.

Particularly as on another thread you are declaring that transwomen are female while castigating us for ignoring (or pointing out irregularities and deficiencies) in your scientific study links. Or the links that are merely opinion pieces and present a very biased view.

Or all the organizations that seem to be following the WPATH guidelines that are, in words of young women who have been transitioned medically with drugs and surgeries, harming other young people.

I don’t know if ImWatson’s vid has been posted here yet but it is such a good one for this thread.

Pretty much sums up what we are advocating for. In-depth treatment on a case by case basis.

If this ISN’T what OP is also advocating for, maybe we need to keep going around in circles about properly defining conversion therapy.

ROGD is a conspiracy theory popular in transphobic circles.

Perhaps Shizuku can account for the four thousand percent increase in youngsters showing up at gender clinics?

When pressed, if I remember correctly, a trans ideology advocate here said it was probably something in the water, that the mothers of all those children had drunk. Simultaneously. Across the country.

"ROGD is a conspiracy theory popular in transphobic circles. With the exception of occasional, tarns-obsessed outliers like Blanchard (read his Twitter timeline), no one in academia takes it seriously."

I work with autistic youngsters and have done so for 20 years. I take it seriously because I have seen it, multiple times. A majority of my colleagues can also see it and take it seriously. If you were able to ask practitioners (who tbh live in the real world much more than some academic researchers) I suspect a large majority would be taking it seriously.

As another example, i am part of an online community most of whom are in America that began when our now young adult children were newborn; there are about 70 of us, probably about 200 "children" born to the group. Nobody had a child who was persistent and consistent in rejecting their assigned sex in early childhood. There are now at least 7 "trans" teens or young adults in the group, almost all natal female. Three have had mastectomies and are on testosterone. All have histories of diagnosed or suspected autism or complex trauma (eg adopted child whose adoptive mother then died).

My own child identified as female for a couple of years; now desisted. I remember his early childhood better than he does and I can tell you that he was entirely comfortable as a boy. He is also autistic.

If it were just changing name and clothes it wouldn't matter a bit. Teens explore; they always have.

Have you considered not treating autistic people as idiots who don't know who they are?

Yeah, disingenuous language jibber jabber doesn't work.

Do you have any idea why autism is over represented in the transgender community?

It's person's own innate sense of what sex they are.

Clearly someone who is female having a "sense" of being female is coming from a totally different place from the same "sense" of someone who isn't female. How are those even remotely comparable phenomena?

It seems to me having a "sense" of being female is a very male phenomenon - it occurs in men, but not women. So why are you calling it a "female gender identity". A sense of "womanhood" is a male gender identity.